What is the purpose of sex? - Atheist Nexus2015-08-02T20:05:46Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/what-is-the-purpose-of-sex?groupUrl=conservativeatheists&commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2106244&xg_source=activity&groupId=2182797%3AGroup%3A660910&feed=yes&xn_auth=noJoan, I checked CA's Penal Co…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-14:2182797:Comment:22325932013-05-14T17:43:23.891Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Joan, I checked CA's Penal Code. Among provisions on a variety of things, such as consent, I saw provisions on age differences but nothing on whether pregnancy results.</p>
<p>With a bit more enthusiasm I would find the date of the SC case, the dates of changes in the laws, and the text of older laws.</p>
<p>In my next life I might study law. I will definitely use more care in my choice of parents.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Joan, I checked CA's Penal Code. Among provisions on a variety of things, such as consent, I saw provisions on age differences but nothing on whether pregnancy results.</p>
<p>With a bit more enthusiasm I would find the date of the SC case, the dates of changes in the laws, and the text of older laws.</p>
<p>In my next life I might study law. I will definitely use more care in my choice of parents.</p>
<p></p> The story said the boy's pare…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-13:2182797:Comment:22321622013-05-13T23:29:32.224Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>The story said the boy's parents had insisted on a statutory rape charge.</p>
<p>Their motive? Before I venture a guess, I would want to know the penalties of the various applicable laws.</p>
<p>The story didn't say whether the DA had wanted to charge the woman with a different applicable law.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court did clarify the statutory rape law; they said it doesn't protect boys.</p>
<p>Thanks for the suggestion; I can search the California Penal(?)/Juvenile(?) Code and find what the…</p>
<p>The story said the boy's parents had insisted on a statutory rape charge.</p>
<p>Their motive? Before I venture a guess, I would want to know the penalties of the various applicable laws.</p>
<p>The story didn't say whether the DA had wanted to charge the woman with a different applicable law.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court did clarify the statutory rape law; they said it doesn't protect boys.</p>
<p>Thanks for the suggestion; I can search the California Penal(?)/Juvenile(?) Code and find what the law says.</p>
<p></p> Sam, if you are still checkin…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-13:2182797:Comment:22322772013-05-13T23:08:05.816Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Sam, if you are still checking responses to your seven-month-old post....</p>
<p>First, some context. I see many "leftist" policies as soft-headed and many "rightist" policies as hard-hearted.</p>
<p>Your analyses above are incomplete enough to qualify as hard-hearted.</p>
<p>For instance, with your <em>We have to pay for the offspring of other people's sex because of the welfare/entitlement state,</em> you are remarking on a soft-headed leftist policy.</p>
<p>What is your rightist…</p>
<p>Sam, if you are still checking responses to your seven-month-old post....</p>
<p>First, some context. I see many "leftist" policies as soft-headed and many "rightist" policies as hard-hearted.</p>
<p>Your analyses above are incomplete enough to qualify as hard-hearted.</p>
<p>For instance, with your <em>We have to pay for the offspring of other people's sex because of the welfare/entitlement state,</em> you are remarking on a soft-headed leftist policy.</p>
<p>What is your rightist remedy?</p>
<p>Many rightists insist that abstinence-only sex education works (It doesn't reduce teen pregnancy.) and oppose comprehensive sex education (It does reduce teen pregnancy.)</p>
<p>And so, without reducing teen pregnancy, you want to replace a soft-headed leftist policy with a hard-hearted rightist poliicy:</p>
<p>Your policy: don't pay for the offspring of other peoples sex. Do as the ancients did, put newborns out where they will die of exposure and be eaten by animals. Or do as less ancient people did: make unmarried mothers homeless.</p>
<p>Your second statement above. Will you ignore sexually transmitted diseases and let infections spread? Will you imprison infected folk until they die? Or, like my very angry kid brother, execute them?</p>
<p>Your third statement above. I've never heard anyone on the left tell people to keep their hands off their bodies.</p>
<p></p> Thanks, Joan, I don't remembe…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-13:2182797:Comment:22321522013-05-13T22:13:44.162Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Thanks, Joan, I don't remember where I first heard of a one-cell mutation that evolved to eyes. It might have been in a comment about Dawkins' explanation.</p>
<p>I don't know who once said, evolution is wasteful. It is; for every mutation that benefited an organism, there had to have been maybe hundreds that fatally harmed organisms.</p>
<p>While I'm dealing with exacting uses of language, many academic folk refer to influential ideas as "seminal". That seems like a good place for a word…</p>
<p>Thanks, Joan, I don't remember where I first heard of a one-cell mutation that evolved to eyes. It might have been in a comment about Dawkins' explanation.</p>
<p>I don't know who once said, evolution is wasteful. It is; for every mutation that benefited an organism, there had to have been maybe hundreds that fatally harmed organisms.</p>
<p>While I'm dealing with exacting uses of language, many academic folk refer to influential ideas as "seminal". That seems like a good place for a word developed from female processes, maybe "fallopian". Any thoughts?</p>
<p></p> Richard Dawkins demonstrates…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-13:2182797:Comment:22315092013-05-13T07:09:04.774ZJoan Denoohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E" style="font-size: 13px;" target="_blank">Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye</a></p>
<p>"Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design like to point to what they call the "irreducible complexity" of the eye as proof of the existence of a designer/creator. In other words, they like to say that complex components of our physiology like the eye could not have come about through a process of evolution because they are not…</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E" target="_blank" style="font-size: 13px;">Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye</a></p>
<p>"Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design like to point to what they call the "irreducible complexity" of the eye as proof of the existence of a designer/creator. In other words, they like to say that complex components of our physiology like the eye could not have come about through a process of evolution because they are not of any use until everything is in place and working. In this excerpt from his lecture "Growing Up In The Universe: Climbing Mount Improbable", Professor Dawkins demonstrates how something complex like the eye can indeed evolve."<br/><br/>See all five "Growing Up In The Universe" lectures by Richard Dawkins in their entirety here:<a href="http://richannel.org/christmas-lectures/1991/richard-dawkins" target="_blank" title="http://richannel.org/christmas-lectures/1991/richard-dawkins" rel="nofollow" dir="ltr" class="yt-uix-redirect-link"><br/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://richannel.org/christmas-lectures/1991/richard-dawkins" target="_blank">CHRISTMAS LECTURES 1991 - Growing Up in the Universe</a></p>
<p><a href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/ToGhWan8nzuk1XUZ*34Y9VfhDXdzPphD7kKIkBz4zcSOJtx2q*FjgCA-Xyvo78hI*kmvtLfJ2-7CP3w8JWhxoiQXbbrhM58h/humaneyeevolution.jpg" target="_self"><img src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/ToGhWan8nzuk1XUZ*34Y9VfhDXdzPphD7kKIkBz4zcSOJtx2q*FjgCA-Xyvo78hI*kmvtLfJ2-7CP3w8JWhxoiQXbbrhM58h/humaneyeevolution.jpg" width="593" class="align-full"/></a></p> Oh dear, the "the law was int…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-13:2182797:Comment:22316662013-05-13T05:36:28.857ZJoan Denoohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
<p>Oh dear, the "the law was intended to minimize the number of children on welfare", not protect a child from predatory adults! That needs to be clarified. </p>
<p>Oh dear, the "the law was intended to minimize the number of children on welfare", not protect a child from predatory adults! That needs to be clarified. </p> Oh, I see what you are saying…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-13:2182797:Comment:22316652013-05-13T05:34:02.292ZJoan Denoohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
<p>Oh, I see what you are saying. Writing, as I did, implied design. Oh my goodness, NO! That is not what I meant. Thank you for catching this. The very last thing I want to convey is a design by a designer. Thank you!</p>
<p>Oh, I see what you are saying. Writing, as I did, implied design. Oh my goodness, NO! That is not what I meant. Thank you for catching this. The very last thing I want to convey is a design by a designer. Thank you!</p> Tom, in a very young Richard…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-13:2182797:Comment:22319572013-05-13T05:29:53.068ZJoan Denoohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
<p>Tom, in a very young Richard Dawkins video, "The Royal Institution Lectures for Children: Growing up in the Universe", he explained to children how the nerve cell evolved that was sensitive to light and how it changed over time within and between animal groups. This was an evolutionary advantage. I agree with what you say. I am not sure how "I see because I have eyes" is different than what I said, but I do understand what you say. My point is, each organ evolved over eons of time and…</p>
<p>Tom, in a very young Richard Dawkins video, "The Royal Institution Lectures for Children: Growing up in the Universe", he explained to children how the nerve cell evolved that was sensitive to light and how it changed over time within and between animal groups. This was an evolutionary advantage. I agree with what you say. I am not sure how "I see because I have eyes" is different than what I said, but I do understand what you say. My point is, each organ evolved over eons of time and produced natural effects that give an advantage to species. I meant to imply that seeing is not dirty, nor is sexuality. </p> More. Warning! Metaphors Ahea…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-11:2182797:Comment:22308032013-05-11T09:05:31.267Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>More. Warning! Metaphors Ahead!</p>
<p>I'm not picking on you, Joan. During twelve years in Catholic schools, nuns and priests had poured so much "concrete" around what they'd planted that the first fractures required a traumatic event. The big pieces fell of their own weight; with broom and dustpan I'm still sweeping away sand-grain-size pieces.</p>
<p>I don't recall hearing anything opposed to evolution, but when I got to the University of Florida I visited the museum and for the first…</p>
<p>More. Warning! Metaphors Ahead!</p>
<p>I'm not picking on you, Joan. During twelve years in Catholic schools, nuns and priests had poured so much "concrete" around what they'd planted that the first fractures required a traumatic event. The big pieces fell of their own weight; with broom and dustpan I'm still sweeping away sand-grain-size pieces.</p>
<p>I don't recall hearing anything opposed to evolution, but when I got to the University of Florida I visited the museum and for the first time saw the skeletal structure similarities. Forelimbs, even wings, having the same number of bones and similar connections to nearby bones, etc. "How can humans and animals not be related?" I asked myself.</p>
<p>Catholicism itself went next; agnosticism replaced it. Its bizarre teachings about sex took a marriage to a never-was-a-Catholic woman to sweep away the big pieces. I was still clearing away pebble-sized pieces when I joined the SF Sex Information community (<a href="http://www.sfsi.org" target="_blank">www.sfsi.org</a>). Many there had also quit Catholicism and I saw SFSI as a wonderful remedy for my twelve years in C. schools.</p>
<p>I don't have a particle of belief in a life after death but I joke about a next life in which I'm a part-time lawyer, part-time massage therapist.</p>
<p>I read every SCOTUS ruling about church and state and many are about attempts to put the genesis delusion into public schools. I'm wary of words that suggest design, and so I did as you do: I spoke my truth.</p>
<p></p> Uh-oh, Joan, are you saying "…tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-05-10:2182797:Comment:22306022013-05-10T21:03:03.894Ztom sarbeckhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Uh-oh, Joan, are you saying "our reason for having eyes is to see"? That eyes have a purpose?</p>
<p>I would have said, "I see because I have eyes", I hear because I have ears; I breathe and smell because I have a nose, etc.</p>
<p>I'll take the "see/eyes" item apart and check it more closely:</p>
<p>1) A random mutation produced a nerve cell that was sensitive to light,</p>
<p>2) This sensitivity conferred an evolutionary advantage, and</p>
<p>3) Very slowly, an ability to see…</p>
<p>Uh-oh, Joan, are you saying "our reason for having eyes is to see"? That eyes have a purpose?</p>
<p>I would have said, "I see because I have eyes", I hear because I have ears; I breathe and smell because I have a nose, etc.</p>
<p>I'll take the "see/eyes" item apart and check it more closely:</p>
<p>1) A random mutation produced a nerve cell that was sensitive to light,</p>
<p>2) This sensitivity conferred an evolutionary advantage, and</p>
<p>3) Very slowly, an ability to see evolved.</p>
<p>More later, I have to run. What say you?</p>
<p></p>